From the New York Times book review of Kelly’s new memoir (with my emphases):

[T]he day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.

She doesn’t speculate where the leak came from. (She reports. You decide.) But that’s another unambiguous takeaway from this book: Parts of Fox — or at the very least, Roger Ailes, the network’s chairman until July, when he was given the boot after several allegations of sexual harassment were made against him — seemed to be nakedly colluding with the Republican presidential nominee.

That’s bad enough. And I will check the book out of the library to find out what, if any, other collusion is discussed. But the fact that Kelly never revealed it during the campaign - even as she and her colleagues wentafter Donna Brazile and CNN for leaking questions to Hillary Clinton - makes it worse. Kelly has an image, as the Times writes, as “the intrepid gal reporter who made herself indispensable to the brass and resisted the herd mentality of the men around her. She was the hen in the Fox house, taking it upon herself to ask at nearly every turn: Shouldn’t we be concerned that the Republican nominee for president is profoundly disrespectful of women in his public discourse?”

Shouldn’t we also be concerned that her colleagues were nakedly colluding with a presidential candidate?

On October 20, 2016, after the October 19 presidential debate, Kelly badgered Brazile for several minutes about the leaked CNN question.

Don’t you think Kelly owed her viewers the same kind of transparency she demanded of Brazile? And doesn't the fact that Kelly withheld this information until after the debate make her, at the very least, an enabler of the collusion?

Watch her contentious, now hypocritical exchange with Brazile below, from Fox’s October 20, 2016 post-debate coverage.

UPDATE: Kelly denies she suggested Trump had any debate questions in advance. I'll have to read the book to see exactly what she says. But I ask, why write about this incident if not to suggest that Trump had the question? She's not stupid. She knows people will pay close attention to what she says about a thing like that.

For the record, my book "Settle for More" does not suggest Trump had any debate Qs in advance, nor do I believe that he did.

He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.-————

I see that Kelly is denying it (despite the fact that she very clearly suggested in her writing that Trump had heard about her 1st question). So, if he really didn’t hear about the question as she’s claiming, why did she put it in her book?